Title
People vs. Ursua y Bernal
Case
G.R. No. 218575
Decision Date
Oct 4, 2017
A father, Francis Ursua, was convicted of qualified rape and sexual abuse against his daughter, AAA, in 2006. Medical evidence and AAA's credible testimony led to his sentencing to reclusion perpetua and substantial damages.
rape
acts of lasciviousness
conviction
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 218575)

Factual Background

The evidence established that AAA, together with her father Ursua and her elder brother BBB, lived in a small house described as having one room (sola). In the early hours of January 17, 2006, at around midnight, Ursua, who was drunk, woke AAA and ordered her to buy porridge (lugaw). After she ate, he instructed her to turn off the light and close the door. They slept in one bed. Ursua then undressed AAA, touched her vagina and held her breast. He removed his short pants and brief, placed himself on top of her, pulled his penis, and inserted it into her vagina. He told her not to make any noise. AAA cried but did not shout, resist, or ask her father to stop, explaining that her father had almost hit her (muntik na po nya akong sapakin).

In the dawn of January 18, 2006, Ursua repeated the sexual assaults. He held AAA’s vagina and breast and inserted his penis into her vagina again. AAA did not seek help or shout, again because she feared her father’s violence and had been told not to make any noise.

The record further showed a third incident on January 18, 2006 at about 10:00 p.m. Ursua again held AAA’s breasts and vagina and placed himself on top of her (pinatong po nya uliyong, pumatong po uli sya sa akin).

During the period from January 17 to January 18, 2006, BBB was outside selling in the street market. On January 19, 2006, AAA left the house and went to her godfather, CCC, under the Pasig City Hall area. She informed CCC of what had happened. She did not return to the house and stayed with her godfather and cousins. On November 14, 2006, AAA executed a sworn statement with assistance from a liaison officer of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) before the Women and Children Concern Unit of the Pasig City Police Station.

Pursuant to a Request for Genital Examination, police medico-legal officer PSI Marianne Ebdane, of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, examined AAA on November 9, 2006. She found deep healed lacerations at the seven o’clock position and shallow healed lacerations at the two, three, and nine o’clock positions. She concluded that there was clear evidence of a remote history of blunt force or penetrating trauma to AAA’s hymen. Based on the police interview and AAA’s disclosure that her father inserted his organ into her vagina, charges for qualified rape were filed against Ursua.

Informations, Arraignment, and Trial

Three Informations, all dated February 20, 2007, were filed for qualified rape by sexual intercourse. In Criminal Case No. 134832-H, Criminal Case No. 134833-H, and Criminal Case No. 134834-H, the prosecution alleged that Ursua, by force and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with AAA, then alleged as fourteen years old and his daughter, against her will and consent, on January 17, 2006, January 18, 2006 at about 5:00 a.m., and January 18, 2006 at about 10:00 p.m., respectively.

Ursua pleaded not guilty. At trial, Ursua denied having carnal knowledge of AAA. He testified that he arrived at the house between nine and ten in the evening of January 17, 2006 after working at a neighbor’s place. He claimed that he requested his children to buy lugaw, ate upon their return, and rested. He stated that when he slept, lights were on and BBB slept at the middle between him and AAA. He asserted that he did not notice anything while sleeping. For the early hours of January 18, he claimed he woke at 5:00 a.m. and that BBB was awake while AAA was still asleep. He said he brought BBB to the market and returned by 7:00 a.m. to pick up AAA to bring her to school. He denied any sexual assault and maintained he was away for work after that, returning around midnight on January 18.

He also testified that on January 19, 2006, AAA left their house to attend school and proceeded directly to CCC’s store under Pasig City Hall, from about twelve noon to nine to ten in the evening. He claimed AAA did not return home anymore and said that, since September 2006, she had been staying at DSWD.

Ursua attributed the filing of the cases to AAA’s alleged grievance that he prevented her from going to CCC because he noticed her closeness to her godfather, including that CCC sometimes embraced her and that AAA sometimes sat on his lap. According to Ursua, due to his prohibition, AAA would leave during sleep and reappear already at CCC’s place.

BBB testified for the defense. He stated that on January 17, 2006 he was at home with AAA while his father worked as a helper. He testified that after eating lugaw, they slept around ten to eleven at night in a house with only one bed, with Ursua and AAA sleeping on either side. He denied noticing anything unusual and testified he woke up at 5:00 a.m. when the light was on.

RTC Ruling

On November 22, 2012, the RTC convicted Ursua of three counts of qualified rape. The trial court found AAA’s testimony credible. It held that AAA positively identified her father as the perpetrator and narrated events consistently with respect to the material facts and dates and times. It also found support in the medico-legal report presented through PSI Ebdane, which corroborated the existence of healed injuries consistent with remote penetrating trauma.

The RTC rejected Ursua’s denial as well as the defense of alibi. It reasoned that even if BBB corroborated Ursua, the defense remained unsubstantiated and there was no doubt that Ursua could be at the scene at the time of the alleged incidents. The RTC imposed reclusion perpetua for three counts and ordered damages to AAA.

CA Proceedings and Modification

The CA affirmed the conviction with modification. It held that Ursua’s denial could not overcome AAA’s positive testimony. It characterized AAA as spontaneous and credible, noting that she gave a clear and categorical narration and remained firm in her accusations.

However, the CA modified the third count. It ruled that the prosecution failed to prove penile penetration for the rape charged as occurring in the evening of January 18, 2006. Accordingly, the CA downgraded the third offense to acts of lasciviousness and modified the penalties and damages awarded, reducing moral damages and altering civil indemnity and exemplary damages.

Issues Raised in Appeal

On appeal to the Court, the matter centered on whether the convictions should stand, and whether the penalty and damages should be recalibrated. The Court also addressed the proper nomenclature and legal characterization of the third count, given the prosecution’s failure to establish penetration for that incident, and the variance between the charge and the evidence adduced at trial.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Court affirmed the CA decision with modification. It accorded high respect and conclusiveness to the RTC and CA calibration of witness credibility, particularly because there was no showing of glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions. It agreed that AAA’s testimony, sustained by medico-legal findings, justified conviction for the first two counts of qualified rape.

Nevertheless, the Court modified the penalties and damages for the two rape counts and clarified the required nomenclature on the third count. It corrected the penalty specification for qualified rape where the victim was under eighteen and the offender was the parent, applying the governing framework under R.A. No. 9346. It further modified damages in line with controlling jurisprudence. Finally, it modified the offense label for the third count, concluding that the evidence proved sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, rather than mere acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code as the CA had limited.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

As to the first two counts of qualified rape, the Court held that penile penetration and sexual intercourse had been established through AAA’s consistent testimony and through PSI Ebdane’s medico-legal findings showing healed injuries consistent with remote penetrating trauma. It therefore sustained the conviction.

The Court then adjusted the penalty to specify reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for qualified rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B(1), considering R.A. No. 9346. It relied on the rule reflected in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, which required the qualification “without eligibility for parole” to emphasize that death penalty would have applied but for the prohibition under R.A. No. 9346.

The Court also recalibrated damages for the first two counts. It invoked the principle in People v. Jugueta, where in qualified rape cases the imposable penalty was death but reduced to reclusion perpetua due to R.A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were each set at P100,000.00 per count.

Regarding Criminal Case No. 134834-H, the CA had downgraded the offense to acts of lasciviousness because it found no specific mention of penetration. The Court agreed that rape by sexual intercourse could not be maintained on the charged theory, since AAA testified only to touching of her breasts and vagina and thereafter that Ursua placed himself on top of her. The Court held that Ursua could still be convicted for an offense necessarily included in acts of lasciviousness under the variance doctrine.

Applying Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, the Court reasoned that although the information had charged rape by sexual intercourse, the acts proved during trial necessarily encompassed the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. It explained that the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) were: (i) the accused committed an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (ii) the act was performed against a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and (iii) the child was below eighteen years of age. It found that Ursua’s touching of AAA’s breasts and vagi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms